Facilities Management Case Study Essay Example

Facilities Management Case Study Essay Example Facilities Management Case Study Essay Facilities Management Case Study Essay Biotech Case Study: Implementing Predictive Maintenance for Ultra-Low Temperature Freezers Submitted By: Regina Gracia E. Sandoval Carolyn Pulanco Glaiza Bustria Joyce Domingo Jeralyn Barrios Arabelle Loresto OM4A RND Biotech Case Study: Implementing Predictive Maintenance for Ultra-Low Temperature Freezers October 2008 CHALLENGE: * RND Biotech operates 300 ultra-low freezers (-80 °C) that frequently fail, even though maintenance activities are performed on a quarterly basis. RND Biotech is currently replacing freezers as they fail, rather than trying to repair them, to keep up with the required freezer capacity. * When freezers fail, RND Biotech potentially loses product development samples that represent months of research. * RND Biotech would like to implement a predictive maintenance strategy and continuously monitor freezer function, which they believe will improve uptime, and free up skilled labor for other tasks. * However, they have not found a comprehensive method that is cost-efficient and non-invasive to implement a predictive maintenance strategy. Most alternatives only monitor freezer temperature which is not enough for predictive monitoring. SOLUTION: RND Biotech installed a new automation technology which did not incur any disruption to ongoing processes and required minimal installation cost. The solution, a non-invasive wireless sensor system, allowed RND Biotech to monitor multiple freezer data points, including chamber temperature and compressor amperage. RESULTS: * RND Biotech immediately found distressed freezers and were able to prevent failures. The freezers were able to be repaired, as opposed to replaced, saving approximately $7,000 per freezer. RND Biotech is now able to implement a predictive maintenance strategy for their freezers. Challenge RND Biotech is a biotechnology research and development company. The company has 300 ultra-low freezers (-80 °C), used to store research samples. These freezers are critical to RND Biotech because the samples stored in them represent ongoing research that comprises the co mpany’s product pipeline. Failures of these freezers could potentially result in a loss of years’ worth of research for new products that could be worth billions of dollars in revenue. The facilities group reports that it spends a significant amount of time addressing freezer failures. Records show that approximately twenty work orders per month are freezer related. Additionally, researchers complain that frequent freezer failures impact their ability to focus on their research. When a freezer fails, researchers have to scramble to find space in other freezers to store samples. If the failure occurs during non-working hours, both facilities and research personnel have to come to the facility in order to address the failure. If the failure is not addressed in time, the freezer contents critical research samples or products are lost. The empty freezers have to be defrosted and decontaminated before they can be moved to the maintenance area for troubleshooting and repairs. This process alone can take up to a week. Failures have occurred frequently enough that it is now more convenient for RND Biotech to simply replace the freezers as opposed to repairing them, even though it is not a cost efficient solution. The primary failure mode on ultra-low freezers is at the compressors. The ultra-low freezers each have two compressors. Failure of either compressor directly impacts the freezer’s ability to maintain temperature. Simply monitoring the temperature of the freezer is not enough to preventatively catch failures. By the time the temperature rises, everyone has to react to the impending failure as opposed to preventing it. The primary function of the preventative maintenance procedures is to ensure that the compressors are functioning efficiently. To accomplish this, specific maintenance activities include: * measuring compressor amperage on a quarterly basis to ensure that the compressors are operating within specification and are not overworked * de-icing the door gasket on a quarterly basis so that the freezer chamber is properly sealed * maintaining the filters on a semi-annual basis so that proper air flow and temperature is achieved around the compressors * defrosting and de-icing the freezer on an annual basis to prevent ice buildup in the freezer chamber Even with such rigorous maintenance of the ultra-low freezers, there are still a significant number of failures occurring and disrupting operations. The facilities group is looking for a way to be able to detect potential problems with freezers before they fail so that the impact on operations is minimized. Implementing Predictive Maintenance RND Biotech would like to implement a predictive maintenance strategy for their ultra-low freezers. Their goal is to get ahead of their failures and maximize equipment uptime. In order to accomplish this, the facilities group would need to be able to monitor the freezer compressors on a frequent and regular basis, in order to observe the normal mode of operation of the freezers. Current preventative maintenance procedures only allow facilities to take a snapshot of compressor operation at the time the maintenance is performed. The Cypress Solution Cypress Systems offers a Wireless Freezer Monitor (WFM) designed to check the overall health of the freezers. This battery operated device can be installed on a freezer to monitor compressor amperage and freezer temperature on pre-defined intervals. The data is wirelessly transmitted back to the Cypress server, where it can be trended via a web interface. Wireless data collection allows the freezers to be moved if needed without reinstalling hard-wired sensors. The battery operated device eliminates the need to have additional power available for monitoring tools. Results RND Biotech tested the Cypress wireless freezer monitor solution and installed WFMs on a pilot of twenty freezers, at a cost of $2000 per freezer. At the onset of the project, the expectation was that 10% of the freezers were not performing optimally. RND Biotech immediately found 20%, or four, of their freezers that were now monitored were not functioning optimally. Problems they saw included compressors not cycling off or compressors cycling on and off too frequently. Both situations indicated that the freezers were working harder than they should and needed to be repaired. All four freezers were all eventually repaired rather than replaced. The replacement cost per freezer would have been $12,000. The repair cost was approximately $5,000 per freezer. RND Biotech was able to save $28,000. Additionally, if a researcher had to reproduce lost samples, it could potentially cost $7,000 or more in labor and material costs. The initial investment in the Cypress solution for the twenty freezers was $40,000. The financial payback was under two years. RND Biotech was greatly impressed with the ability they gained to coordinate the repair activities without having to scramble. Value of Predictive Maintenance for Freezers The immediate benefit of the Cypress Wireless Freezer Monitor system was that the facilities group could plan their repair activities with research, rather than have to scramble to find freezer space for their samples. They were able to prioritize which freezers were more critical to address. Financially, the project had an immediate payback, based on the number of freezers that were in distress and the new capability for RND Biotech to coordinate repairing their freezers before they fail as opposed to purchasing new ones. The value that they see includes: reducing the frequency of freezer failures nd emergency response situations mitigating the risk of loss in RND Biotech’s product pipeline troubleshooting freezer work orders more easily by viewing amperage and temperature trends and even reducing the number of work orders submitted for freezer problems minimizing required maintenance activities, reducing maintenance time having the ability to plan maintenance and repair acti vities around research activities becoming more â€Å"green† by replacing fewer freezers saving energy by repairing compressors as soon as problems becomes evident, rather than only observing problems during maintenance or when failures occur Based on these overall benefits and proven utility, RND Biotech now plans to install the Cypress wireless freezer monitors on all their ultra-low freezers.

Battle of Glorieta Pass in the Civil War

Battle of Glorieta Pass in the Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass - Conflict: The Battle of Glorieta Pass occurred during the American Civil War. Battle of Glorieta Pass - Dates: Union and Confederate forces clashed at Glorieta Pass on March 26-28, 1862. Armies Commanders: Union Colonel John P. SloughMajor John Chivington1,300 men Confederates Major Charles L. PyronLt. Colonel William R. Scurry1,100 men Battle of Glorieta Pass - Background: In early 1862, Confederate forces under Brigadier General Henry H. Sibley began pushing west from Texas into the New Mexico Territory. His goal was to occupy the Santa Fe Trail as far north as Colorado with the intention of opening a line of communication with California. Advancing west, Sibley initially sought to capture Fort Craig near the Rio Grande. On February 20-21, he defeated a Union force under Colonel Edward Canby at the Battle of Valverde. Retreating, Canbys force took refuge at Fort Craig. Electing not to attack the fortified Union troops, Sibley pressed on leaving them in his rear. Moving up the Rio Grande Valley, he established his headquarters at Albuquerque. Sending his forces forward, they occupied Santa Fe on March 10. Shortly thereafter, Sibley pushed an advance force of between 200 and 300 Texans, under Major Charles L. Pyron, over the Glorieta Pass at the southern end of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The capture of the pass would allow Sibley to advance and capture Fort Union, a key base along the Santa Fe Trail. Camping at Apache Canyon in Glorieta Pass, Pyrons men were attacked on March 26 by 418 Union soldiers led by Major John M. Chivington. Battle of Glorieta Pass - Chivington Attacks: Assaulting Pyrons line, Chivingtons initial attack was beaten back by Confederate artillery. He then split his force and two and repeatedly flanked Pyrons men forcing them to retreat twice. As Pyron fell back a second time, Chivingtons cavalry swept in and captured the Confederate rearguard. Consolidating his forces, Chivington went into camp at Kozlowskis Ranch. On the following day the battlefield was quiet as both sides were reinforced. Pyron was augmented by 800 men led by Lieutenant Colonel William R. Scurry, bringing Confederate strength to around 1,100 men. On the Union side, Chivington was reinforced by 900 men from Fort Union under the command of Colonel John P. Slough. Assessing the situation, Slough planned to attack the Confederates the next day. Chivington was given orders to take his men in a circling movement with the goal of striking the Confederate flank as Slough engaged their front. In the Confederate camp, Scurry also planned an advance with the goal of attacking at the Union troops in the pass. On the morning of March 28, both sides moved into Glorieta Pass. Battle of Glorieta Pass - A Close Fight: Seeing the Union troops moving towards his men, Scurry formed a line of battle and prepared to receive Sloughs attack. Surprised to find the Confederates in an advanced position, Slough realized that Chivington would not be able to assist in the assault as planned. Moving forward, Sloughs men struck at Scurrys line around 11:00 AM. In the battle that followed, both sides repeatedly attacked and counterattacked, with Scurrys men getting the better of the fighting. Unlike the rigid formations used in the East, the fighting in Glorieta Pass tended to be focused on small unit actions due to the broken terrain. After forcing Sloughs men to fall back to Pigeon Ranch, and then Kozlowskis Ranch, Scurry broke off the fighting happy to have achieved a tactical victory. While the battle was raging between Slough and Scurry, Chivingtons scouts succeeded in locating the Confederate supply train. Out of position to assist in Sloughs attack, Chivington elected not to rush to the sound of the guns, but rather advanced and captured the Confederate supplies after a brief skirmish at Johnsons Ranch. With the loss of the supply train, Scurry was forced to withdraw despite having won a victory in the pass. Battle of Glorieta Pass - Aftermath: Union casualties at the Battle of Glorieta Pass numbered 51 killed, 78 wounded, and 15 captured. Confederate forces suffered 48 killed, 80 wounded, and 92 captured. While a tactical Confederate victory, the Battle of Glorieta Pass proved to be a key strategic win for the Union. Due to the loss of his supply train, Sibley was forced to withdraw back to Texas, ultimately arriving at San Antonio. The defeat of Sibleys New Mexico Campaign effectively ended Confederate designs on the Southwest and the area remained in Union hands for the duration of the war. Due to the decisive nature of the battle, it is sometimes referred to as the Gettysburg of the West. Selected Sources CWSAC Battle Summaries: Battle of Glorieta PassBattle of Glorieta Pass: A Shattered DreamPhotographs of Glorieta Pass